IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay C.R.A. 650 of 2013 Rabi Roy & Anr.

-Vs-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellants : Mr. Apalak Basu (Amicus Curiae)

For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain Mr. Anand Keshari Heard on : 27.02.2024, 12.03.2024, 25.04.2024, 22.05.2024, 04.10.2024 Judgment on : 24.04.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. This appeal is preferred against a judgment and order of conviction dated

07.05.2013 & 08.05.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadar, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No.8(02)/11 arising out of Sessions Case No.10/2011 convicting the appellants under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 26.06.07 at 16:25 hours the complainant reached in front of the shop of Pranabesh Majumder, Station Road, Haldibari and found the appellants were standing with FICN. The FICN was given to Rajib Roy (PW-11), the worker of the shop by Dipu Roy (appellant no.2). The complainant interrogated and arrested the appellants at 16:35 hours. The I.C. and B.D.O. of Haldibari came to spot at 16:30 hours and on search two numbers of FICN in the back pocket of Rabi Roy (appellant no.1) and one number FICN was in the hand of Rabi Roy (appellant no.1) and rest in the back pocket of Dipu Roy (appellant no.2) were seized. During investigation it was revealed that FICN was received by the appellants from one Shymal Roy who was discharged.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Police initiated Haldibari P.S.

Case No.43/07 dated 26.06.2007 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 489A/489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants.

4. After completion of investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The charge was framed against the appellants to whom he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

7. The Learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellants submitted that the charge was defective and it did not specify the number of notes. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had the knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were fake. There was not even a single witness who claimed to have completely seen the exact seizure as well as identified the appellant on dock. The exact number of FINCs were not established. It was not proved what was recovered from whom. The examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was faulty and material questions were not put to the appellants.

8. The Learned Advocate representing the State submitted as follows:- i. The prosecution had been able to proof all reasonable grounds that the notes seized from the possession of the appellants were in fact Fake Indian Currency Notes. PW-14 had sent the FICNs for F.S.L. examination and had collected the report marked as Exbt.-13 which clearly shows that the currency notes so seized from the appellants what in fact fake.

ii. Although it was true that some independent witnesses had either deposed for the first time in Court or had deposed different versions of the incident as had taken place but merely because there were certain debeations in the narration of the witnesses did not itself prove that the entire prosecution case was a lie.

iii. The quality of evidence should be taken into consideration instead of the quantity of evidence. In the present case all the police witnesses had deposed in the same thing along with the other public witnesses excepting few. The defense had miserably failed to demonstrate the by cross-examination as to why the police witnesses shall falsely implicate the appellants. The defense had miserably failed to demonstrate the enmity of the police witnesses with the appellants because of which they